Six Unities Analysis: SuiteTwo

I have recently been exposed to a new Intel intranet appliance product called SuiteTwo. SuiteTwo is an integration of MoveableType, SocialText, NewsGator, SimpleFeed, VisiblePath and SpikeSource for the enterprise to take advantage of Blogs, Wikis, Social Networking, RSS feeds, RSS aggregation and Open Source internally. Apparently, eager clients are offering plenty of ideas to even further enhance SuiteTwo and its integrated products, but let’s take a moment to analyze what an ideal tool would ultimately do from the ground up from the perspective of the Six Unities.

Note: the Six Unities are resource groups and resources are both internal and external to the enterprise.

Location – Contact Resources

Locations for each of the entities for each of the unities would be available. I would be able to track the location of staff and inventory according to internal and external coordinates be it geographic, facility, postal, telecom, internet or any other. These are all the enterprise’s touch points. Where are we receiving and transmitting to/from the enterprise? REPOSE. Where the resource contacts.

Trigger – Event Resources

Activations for each of the entities for each of the unities would be available. Ultimately, all events are reactive–dependent on internal or external entities. REFLEX. When the resource contacts.

Data – Product Resources

Inventories of all entities for each of the unities. I would know the quality and quantity of any fixed, virtual and liquid assets of the company according to internal and/or external metrics internally and externally. Data is a repository of all enterprise resources allowing check in and check out. RECORD. What the resource contacts.

Information – Service Resources

Functions performed by all the entities for each of the unities. Whether digital, mechanical or manual all the processes would be documented in human readable form. The work and play done and being done within the enterprise and externally. REPORT. How the resource contacts.

Knowledge – Human Resources

Social Network for all entities for all unities. In every case someone is responsible for every entity internally and externally. Who are we, who do we report to, who do we share with internally and externally? RELATE. Who the resource contacts.

Wisdom – Policy Resources

Meaning and mantra for every entity for every unity. It is important to know the motive of everyone and everything both internally and externally that involves the system in order to know whether they will abide by the greater goal of the enterprise. Why are we united according to internal and external rules? REVISE. Why the resource contacts.

Take a look at the products SuiteTwo integrates and ask yourself if they answer the needs of the six unities. In my opinion SocialText’s Wiki is bearing the brunt of the requirements, but does it stand up? I don’t think it does, because it does not correctly incorporate location, event and inventory.






Systema: CI-DIKW Hierarchy Definitions

I have been wanting to clearly define each of the terms Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom for some time. I have thought about Artificial Intelligence, Knowledge Bases, Knowledge Management, Data Management and other disciplines and have decided on the following simple definitions:

  1. Wisdom is the ability to model entities in a system. This is extrapolative.
  2. Knowledge is the ability to model relationships in a system. This is interpolative.
  3. Information is the ability to model attributes in a system. This is intrapolative.
  4. Data is the ability to model constraints in a system. This is extrapolitive.
  5. Intuition is the ability to model definitions in a system. This is interpolitive.
  6. Communication is the ability to model manipulations to and from a system. This is intrapolitive.

I have been forced to come up with the root “polite” to describe a single input value as opposed to “polar” which is a collection of input values. But what I want to point out is there is no automated tool capable of creating new models of communication, intuition, data, information, knowledge or wisdom, as simply defined as this is, that can be regarded as “intelligent.”
The above six perspectives affect the following focuses or modeling languages:

  1. Motivation Modeling
  2. Network Modeling
  3. Data Modeling
  4. Process Modeling
  5. Person Modeling
  6. Time Modeling

The perspectives CIDIKW and focuses MNDPPT make a thirty-six cell framework I call the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework. What I am pointing out here is that no system is simply one dimensional. Human systems are six dimensional at least. There is also a meta-layer, the model, and a data-layer, the database, for each dimension. The modeling systems and databases for all the dimensions are still very primitive and incompatible. Slowly, we are getting there, but there is more than enough work out there for anyone who wants to come up with a consistent modeling language. And if you do, you will have the foundation for a true AI.

The Six Hats, Six Coats Framework

“You’ve come a long way baby.” — Virginia Slims

I have been attempting to come up with a means to communicate some of my insights without losing the heart of the Six Hats, Six Coats metaphor. I was sick of repeating the graphic without adding much more content. Finally, I have come up with the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework.

First, let’s refresh on what the Six Hats represent:


REVISE: Conceptualize. Expand Meaning. What are you enhancing or making right? Creativity.

RELATE: Contextualize. Focus on Uniqueness. What is your mantra? Relativity.

REPORT: Logicalize. Maximize Value. What are you normalizing to the limit? Optimicity.

RECORD: Physicalize. Minimize Cost. What is your business model? Pessimicity.

REFINE: Mechanicalize. Humanize Interaction. How do you lower the barriers to adoption? Anthropicity.

REPEAT: Operationalize. Synchronize. Increase Availability. How do you make yourself convenient? Synchronicity.

Second, lets refresh on what the Six Coats represent:


MOTIVE: Motivational. Why? Concepts affected.

LOCALE: Spatial. Where? Contexts affected.

OBJECT: Formal. What? Logics affected.

METHOD: Functional. How? Physics affected.

PERSON: Personal. Who? Humans affected.

MOMENT: Temporal. When? Synchrons affected.

Now, let’s look at some of our concepts in within the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework.

The first is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (rows) and the Zachman Focuses (columns):


Second is McLuhan’s Laws of Media (rows) and the Zachman Focuses (columns):


Third is Moffett’s Universe of Discourse (rows) and the Zachman Focuses (columns):


The Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom Model hierarchy (rows) and Zachman Focuses (columns):


Now, we are going to break the rules. Perhaps we will see something we hadn’t considered.

Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (rows) and Moffett’s Universe of Discourse (columns):


McLuhan’s Laws of Media (rows) and Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (columns):


McLuhan’s Laws of Media (rows) and Moffett’s Universe of Discourse (columns):


Second last, “old reliable”, an abstract representation of the Zachman Framework:


Finally, one I call “Puzzles and Pieces”:


Hope you might see something new. It is sort of an ad nauseum excercise in search of a new pattern. Personally, I am reflecting on the similarity of multiple systems of thought about systems. “Puzzles and Pieces” was the outcome for me so far. The top three rows are the relationships above the individual entities (ie. Networks above Nodes) and the bottom three rows are the relationships below the individual entities (ie. Nodas below Nodes). I had to create some new terms for the focuses of the lower three rows.

See the latest version of the Six Hats, Six Coats Framework here.

Since I have created this framework I have made considerable progress and simplification you can see the result of this here.

relationary six hats, six coats framework relationary six hats, six coats framework relationary six hats, six coats framework

Six Hats, Six Coats: Red Hat

In an earlier post I created a variation on this ring diagram:


I came up with the two lower levels of the ring diagram, reflex and intuition, after having given considerable thought to the Six Hats metaphor:


And the Six Rings metaphor:


I could see that these hexads revealed two levels that were rarely discussed in the context of Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom. I began to wonder how to correctly define them. After reading Edward de Bono’s Six Thinking Hats concept and John Zachman’s Framework which both contained six perspectives (Zachman considered Mechanical and Operational out of context, but made a point of including them) I began to look at the Red Hat and the Blue Hat in a new light.

Edward de Bono called the Red Hat the “intuitive” hat. Zachman referred to it as the implementation perspective. The Blue Hat de Bono called the “process” hat, Zachman called it the “operational” perspective. The Blue Hat I call the Operational or “reflex” hat. In this post I am going to discuss the Red Hat, which I call the Mechanical or “intuition” hat.

I find that intuition is not thoroughly discussed or well understood in most of the literature. However, Zachman’s framework gave me an alternative insight. In Zachman’s implementation perspective, design is translated into formally documented goals, network configurations, data definition language, program code, personnel roles, and system schedules. In otherwords, the mechanisms which the system enforceably observes. Any operations that fall outside of the implementation are treated as exceptions and flagged for handling at higher levels. The implementation defines intuitive behavior.

Intuitive behavior in us as persons is often called habit or subconscious behavior. When we train ourselves in any way we are implementing design. The literature says that it takes roughly twenty-one days to implement any habit. Habit has a motivational, spatial, formal, functional, personal and temporal component, what I describe as the Six Coats:


When we work within the boundaries of well developed habit we experience the phenomenon called flow. Flow is the handling of events without the occurrence of exceptions to our habits. One of the commonly used examples is a rally during tennis. The two well trained players play within their intuitive boundaries for a prolonged period of time. There is little cognition regarding the return of the ball. In fact, cognition may be focused elsewhere.

Walking is another example of intuition. It is possible to perform many cognitive-physical and cognitive actions while walking. And the flow of walking is rarely broken, even when negotiating a busy sidewalk or corridor.

One aspect of intuition that hasn’t been recognized and which de Bono and Zachman lead me to consider is that intuition observes a hierarchy:


There are high level intuitions and low level intuitions. We can have intuition about our sleeping habits, which is a temporal intuition focus. We can have intuition about walking, which is primarily a functional intuition focus. We can also have intuition about formal (data), spatial (networks) and motivational (goals) focuses. The higher the intuitive focus the more training it requires. This is also where the concept of “naturals” and the “refined” comes into play.

Naturals, are individuals who seem to have an intuitive focus mastered without training. Child prodigies are an example of naturals. However, there is nothing saying that any intuitive focus cannot be be trained to a level exceeding that of a natural. In this case we have the refined performer. Considering these two extremes, we can say that intuitive people can be born or made.

The intuitive difference between genders is another issue. Women are regarded as having superior intuitive abilities. This is attributed to a greater “white matter” content in women’s brains which emphasizes associations as in languages, while men have a greater “grey matter” content which emphasizes entities as in mathematics. However, association intuition and entity intuition both have been exhibited. Also, as in naturals and the refined, intuitive talents can be both born or made across genders.

I have shown that intuition operates below the Data level where exceptions are not handled, but passed upward cognitively when outside of the intuitive flow. I have also explained how intuition observes a hierarchy giving it a dimensionality that is often overlooked. Finally, I have demonstrated that intuition is the product of both innate ability and trained habit.

All systems have an intuitive level where the day passes and few events actually register cognitively. At this time we wonder where the day went. We have come to refer to this state as “business as usual”, but it can be the time of high productivity. Continual interruption of our intuitive processes can actually be counterproductive as it takes time to restore flow, to refocus.

Intuition does have a place in the DIKW hierarchy. But it requires us to descend the hierarchy to place it rightfully at the foundation where we can perform without cognitive registration.

It’s like the dancer said, “I was a good dancer until I started to think about it.”